|
Avenging Dentist posted:For the time being at least, I'm assuming that when your hacker isn't doing anything to help your little guys, they'll be using dice pools (like Deadzone apparently) to resolve stuff. But then you can patch into your guy through their cybernetics and help them out using your extra dice (possibly pre-rolled) as a resource. The idea is that you're specifically playing as the hacker, so it's only through them that you get to mitigate the randomness. Deadzone doesn't have a standing dice pool. Actions generate dice based on conditions and then the attacker and defender both roll looking for a particular target number. Whoever rolls more successes wins with a draw usually going to the defender. For example, shooting generates 3 dice as a base. Surviving being shot generates 3 dice. If the shooter is on a higher level, then they get an extra dice. If the target is out in the open, the shooter gets 2 more. The shooter rolls and checks their dice against their shoot value. Snipers are usually a 3+, lovely grunts a 5+ or 6+ (on a D8). The guy getting shot rolls against his Survive value. Space dwarves survive on a 4+, but space elf robots on a 6+. At the start of every turn, both players roll their "command dice". This is usually about 4 dice that will give you some kind of bonus or bonus action to use during your turn. One of the possible results on the command dice is just an extra dice to add to any roll.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:23 |
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:That could actually work really well for the player character in this game, whose job is to hack into the enemy's computer networks (or to prevent such a hack). One thing I'm still trying to decide is how much I want to rely on software here, since I know I want a computer-driven campaign system, and I could even resolve (parts of?) the tabletop game via software. Maybe something like before the game begins each hacker player selects X number of cards to form the particular network that they're accessing for this skirmish and then both players arrange those cards and only those cards together into the network, so half of it is stuff you picked and half is stuff your opponent picked, and each "node" is keyed to various types/values of dice, but both players can attempt to access the entire thing so you need to be careful about the stuff you pick to incorporate into the network because it means your opponent has access to it as well and might turn it against you. I mean the "decker problem" comes about when one player out of a group is having to do his hacking minigame all by himself while everyone else orders a pizza and chats for 90 minutes, if the entire point of the game is "hacker vs. hacker" then as long as it doesn't become incredibly cumbersome I don't see it having quite the same effect in a 1v1 game. You'd simply want to make sure that the hacking/dice management part doesn't overtake the wargame aspect of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:Deadzone doesn't have a standing dice pool. Actions generate dice based on conditions and then the attacker and defender both roll looking for a particular target number. Whoever rolls more successes wins with a draw usually going to the defender. For example, shooting generates 3 dice as a base. Surviving being shot generates 3 dice. If the shooter is on a higher level, then they get an extra dice. If the target is out in the open, the shooter gets 2 more. The shooter rolls and checks their dice against their shoot value. Snipers are usually a 3+, lovely grunts a 5+ or 6+ (on a D8). The guy getting shot rolls against his Survive value. Space dwarves survive on a 4+, but space elf robots on a 6+. Yeah, this is basically what I mean. (Even down to having different target numbers for each die, although I was planning on D6 or D10, depending on how granular I need rolls to be.) I've also considered having safe dice and risky dice, where bad rolls on a risky die would mean something went wrong (your gun backfires or whatever). Kai Tave posted:if the entire point of the game is "hacker vs. hacker" then as long as it doesn't become incredibly cumbersome I don't see it having quite the same effect in a 1v1 game. You'd simply want to make sure that the hacking/dice management part doesn't overtake the wargame aspect of it. Right. I think the biggest thing I want to avoid is having the hacking stuff turn it into an IGOUGO game. I like alternating activations a lot more since it means less downtime and reduces the advantage you get from having first turn. Having the hacking be mini-Carcassonne is appealing though since I fukken love me some Carcassonne. There are also some questions about how much input each player should have on the computer network's layout based on the kind of mission. If I'm sneaking into the other player's base, maybe they should get to set down more cards for the network? Avenging Dentist fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Dec 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Yeah, this is basically what I mean. (Even down to having different target numbers for each die, although I was planning on D6 or D10, depending on how granular I need rolls to be.) I've also considered having safe dice and risky dice, where bad rolls on a risky die would mean something went wrong (your gun backfires or whatever). I played a chariot racing game with risky dice and it was really fun. That game was a mess of crashes and spinouts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Please summarize so I can steal. Basically how it works in Star Wars destiny is characters, certain supports, and certain upgrades have die. You roll the dice but compared to AoS where it's just "Did hit thing? Yes/no I hit thing" rolling is not one and done. When you and your opponent roll dice they are basically primed for use. You know if you resolve them or if your oppenent resolved them right away it would do exactly what it shows. However using abilities and cards in your hands you can alter, reroll, modify your or your oppenent dice pool. The dice basically act as a starting point and don't get resolved until you feel you've tweaked the results to give you the best possible outcome through clever manipulation. So like imagine in AoS your Sigmar Storming Stormers are in a fight with some Khorne Bleeding Blooders. Instead of just dumping a pile of dice on the table and that being it each unit would roll dice they're allotted based on points/size of the unit. Each player now knows exactly what the other is capable of right now if the dice are resolved as is. The more expensive unit has advantage by virtue of having more dice to change in their favor but it's not the deciding factor, how the players react to the dice are. Now each player plays abilities tied to their units to alter their dice rolls until they feel they've created a winning combination and then resolve the altered dice and the player better able to tie together, plan, and synergies abilities in the unit and hand will have a much better chance of winning even in the face of a larger dice pool however they'll have to rely more on skill then blind luck compared to the player who has the dice advantage. Of course the implementing a system like FFG does requires play testing and you don't play test jewels of wonderment 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Yeah, this is basically what I mean. (Even down to having different target numbers for each die, although I was planning on D6 or D10, depending on how granular I need rolls to be.) I've also considered having safe dice and risky dice, where bad rolls on a risky die would mean something went wrong (your gun backfires or whatever). If you aren't familiar with FFG's Warhammer Fantasy 3E you should rustle up a copy (through whatever means you see fit) and check out how they handle Reckless and Cautious actions because it's basically this. It's the first FFG roleplaying game to use their proprietary Special Dice, in this case Reckless dice have sides that offer up doubled successes but also sides that offer up horrible failures while Cautious dice have no failure results but also have no exceptional successes and have a unique result that basically means that whatever you were trying to do took longer than you'd hoped it would. Obviously these were tuned for a more narrative sort of game, but you could pretty easily adapt the principal for something like a tactical game. Avenging Dentist posted:Right. I think the biggest thing I want to avoid is having the hacking stuff turn it into an IGOUGO game. I like alternating activations a lot more since it means less downtime and reduces the advantage you get from having first turn. Having the hacking be mini-Carcassonne is appealing though since I fukken love me some Carcassonne. Maybe do it so that one player is always the "aggressor" and the other is the "defender" and the defender gets to set up part of the network first while the aggressor gets some other lagniappe to give it some trade-offs. Or maybe borrow a page from Star Wars Armada and both players bring three chosen "scenario cards" that outline various starting network configurations and maybe even objectives for the game, then you pick whose cards will get used, the other player picks one to discard, and the deciding player chooses between the remaining two.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:If you aren't familiar with FFG's Warhammer Fantasy 3E you should rustle up a copy (through whatever means you see fit) and check out how they handle Reckless and Cautious actions because it's basically this. I've been meaning to check out WFRP3. Risky/safe dice is a system I want to use but it's possible I'll save it for a different game. I want this game to go pretty fast, so anywhere I can cut the fat I will. It's one of the things I like about Dark Age: they explicitly design the game around it lasting around an hour. (Can you guess one of the reasons I stopped playing 40k?) Kai Tave posted:Maybe do it so that one player is always the "aggressor" and the other is the "defender" and the defender gets to set up part of the network first while the aggressor gets some other lagniappe to give it some trade-offs. Yeah, one thing I was thinking about was giving the aggressor a fair amount of leeway in deployment, e.g. the defender might get to set up more of the network/real-world, but the aggressor can deploy anywhere around the perimeter of the board. There are a bunch of campaign-related things I want to do too, but I'm trying to get this to work for one-off games first. One of the big things I want in the campaign system is the ability to gain intel about your enemies before you attack them, so you might be able to peek at some of the secret things your enemy set up (or even replace their defenses with stuff to help you) and use that info to deploy your guys in a vulnerable spot. (Another big thing I want in the campaign system is for your little hacker/corporation to have a Notoriety score that goes up as you win and which adds to the riskiness of some of your campaign-level actions. Then players in the lead would need to spend some time managing their Notoriety or they run the risk of falling from grace. The goal is to help mitigate the snowball effect without being too rubber-bandy.) I'll probably write up an actual outline for the design and post about it in the game design thread, hopefully early next week. Right now I just have a bunch of disorganized notes (and these posts).
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
Best resolution with dice are the POP-O-MATIC bubble. Sorry!
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 09:39
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:Basically how it works in Star Wars destiny is characters, certain supports, and certain upgrades have die. You roll the dice but compared to AoS where it's just "Did hit thing? Yes/no I hit thing" rolling is not one and done. When you and your opponent roll dice they are basically primed for use. You know if you resolve them or if your oppenent resolved them right away it would do exactly what it shows. However using abilities and cards in your hands you can alter, reroll, modify your or your oppenent dice pool. The dice basically act as a starting point and don't get resolved until you feel you've tweaked the results to give you the best possible outcome through clever manipulation. And also the results are delayed. Rolling a card's dice (they can have several) and resolving the results of those dice are separate actions, and each player can only take one action per turn. So if my Super Badass Force Guy rolls his dice and gets five points of melee damage, you get at least one turn before I get a chance to actually DEAL that damage. Many cards can remove dice, turn them around or even take advantage of the fact that your opponent now has a really strong attack charged and ready to go. And hell, when it's my turn, I may not want to immediately resolve those dice either, but instead use them as a starting point for a more elaborate combo. But one you will probably get a chance to counter. The game's rules fit on a two-sided A3 with examples and pictures, so they're very simple. But what's built on those very simple rules are complex interactions between you and your opposing player. It's an amazing game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
Ultiville posted:This has a common thread with the Malifaux cards, and also what I liked about Dungeon Command or BGFW's card mechanics: namely, the difference between variance and pure statistics. GW-style dice pools are nothing but an RNG; you plan by figuring out your odds, decide whether the odds are good enough to justify whatever risk or opportunity cost you're paying, and decide whether to roll, then the roll reveals if you're screwed or not. Destiny (with ample things to be done between rolling and resolution), Malifaux or Malidice (reserve pool you can use for swaps), and so forth all inject more player agency. They keep the unpredictable variance aspect, which IMO is pretty important, but they introduce a resource of one kind or another you can use to manage it. That's pretty satisfying and I think is a good way to improve dice resolution systems in general. The trick is to do so without slowing the game down too much; reducing the number of units represented is a good start, which a skirmish system does. Of course, even if you want a larger-scale system, I'd say reducing the number of individually tracked things from 40k's standard is still a very good idea, because that's one way in which GW is very bad. Warmachine adds some of this agency with focus, as you can allocate it to your commander or his group to add dice to rolls - just not the whole force. That and the 2d6 for rolls really makes it better than the flat d6.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I'm not aware of any tabletop skirmish battle game that uses something other than dice or cards. Are you just asking for various dice resolution mechanics, or are there games out there that do something else? Chess is really lazy when it comes to army lists. Models and terrain are also a bit basic. And you know what would be sweet? A pog-based resolution system. Jeb Bush 2012 posted:You could do something with the advantages of the malifaux system by using dice - have everyone roll some dice behind a screen at the start of their turn, and let them swap out one of these "cheat dice" for a regular roll. (or something along those lines - I think it's pretty important that the other players don't know what your cheating options are, and that you do, but I don't know what the best way to implement that would be) I think one might consider borrowing from Weapons of the Gods / Legends of the Wulin. Both RPGs have a resolution system in which you're looking for sets. The best set is for the actual action, while other sets might either be used to trigger secondary effects (like trying to get past someone or launch a second attack if your weapon allows for that), or they can be stored up to a limited amount for later checks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:Warmachine adds some of this agency with focus, as you can allocate it to your commander or his group to add dice to rolls - just not the whole force. That and the 2d6 for rolls really makes it better than the flat d6. Warmachine's dice are still a risk management system for the most part, though. It's been a few years but when I played the focus system didn't really interact with the dice system. Not that that's bad, dice in Warmachine are much more an aspect of the system rather than the meat of it, unlike GW games where it's often dice all the way down. I'd say if anything Warmachine has too many meaningful decision points rather than too few, in any case. But more decision intensive attack/defense mechanics also take longer to resolve, so they'd probably make a game on WM/H's scale grind to a halt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Aetherium uses a d12 system with icons. 4 icons with a variable amount of times they show up, giving between a 1/4 and 1/12 chance for a specific icon to show up (or something along those lines). You usually roll 3 die, with an extra dice if you can attack someone in the back. You then try to match symbols on a track, with each match giving you more damage. There are also disruption cogs on some of the faces (I want to say 1/2 - 1/3 chance of getting a cog). These can usually be spent to do a special action. Taking a look at the cards:  You can see she needs a Switch and 2 Chips. If she rolled 3 Chips she could use 2 of them to do 4 damage; if she rolled 2 Chips and a Switch she would do the max of 5 damage. If she rolled 2 disruption cogs she would be able to do the Threads ability. Hmm, if you know anything about Aetherium this is a weird looking card... wonder what that means. She's the character I created during the kickstarter who is working as an operative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
How many cards are in the maulifaux deck? Is it a standard 52+2 jokers? That's not bad for a auto fail/crit pass if it's one joker is a fail the other a pass. Crit fail/pass is only stupid when you've got stuff like D&D's 5% chance of anything a hero does automatically failing terribly (paired with .25% chance of doing increased damage!) Or like older d10's rules before they had folks who knew probability and why rerolling 10s was bad with the old botch rules/roll difficulty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 11:05
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:How many cards are in the maulifaux deck? Is it a standard 52+2 jokers? That's not bad for a auto fail/crit pass if it's one joker is a fail the other a pass. Crit fail/pass is only stupid when you've got stuff like D&D's 5% chance of anything a hero does automatically failing terribly (paired with .25% chance of doing increased damage!) Or like older d10's rules before they had folks who knew probability and why rerolling 10s was bad with the old botch rules/roll difficulty. Its exactly the same as a standard poker deck including jokers, with the suits renamed and largely corresponding to the original 4 factions. Red Joker is the critical success, Black Joker is the critical failure. It can come up a maximum of once per turn, sometimes not at all. If you waste one of your hand slots holding on to it (if you drew it), you can effectively remove that danger from your deck. The system at its core is remarkably simple, and gives a good feeling of agency and choices mattering. Flip a card, if you've got the advantage for whatever reason you can flip more than one taking the highest, if you've got a disadvantage you draw multiple cards and take the lowest. Add the value to your skill. The person with the lower total has an opportunity to use one of the cards in his hand, a very limited resource, to change the result if they wish. Because the difference between the end values matters, its sometimes worth burning a card to cheat your total higher even if you still won't win, in order to prevent the opponent from gaining too high of a margin and getting a better chance at landing a really painful damage flip. The other player has a chance to respond by cheating in one of their cards as well. So each turn when you draw your hand you've got to have a good idea of what you need to accomplish, and what you're willing to spend to get there. Theres almost constant assessment of how your hand translates into insurance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
I bought an official Malifaux deck and it was loving me pretty hard so I finally got frustrated and laid out all the cards on the table and it had two black jokers in it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
Radish posted:I bought an official Malifaux deck and it was loving me pretty hard so I finally got frustrated and laid out all the cards on the table and it had two black jokers in it. Whhhoooooops. Yeah, no, it should be a normal deck of cards with one red and one black joker. If you contact Wyrd they're really good about replacing mistakes/problems with products.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
Cinnamon Bear posted:Whhhoooooops. In that case there wasn't really a point since it was the standard 54 card deck with an extra black joker, but I was known in that group for having fantastically bad luck and everyone else said that happening was totally appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
Okay, that's actually pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
It was pretty funny after the fact but on the way home I realized that if they had put an extra Red Joker in I would have pretty much looked like a cheater and had no real way of denying that which freaked me out. Always double check your Malifaux deck before playing!
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
There aren't too many of their official Fate Decks that I like, so I use regular playing cards. Well, fancy regular playing cards.  But I seriously love, love, love the card resolution systems in Malifaux and Through the Breach. It just feels elegant once you've got it, and you have an excuse to buy fancy card decks that you can also use for regular non-Malifaux games. You can never have too many cool decks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Radish posted:It was pretty funny after the fact but on the way home I realized that if they had put an extra Red Joker in I would have pretty much looked like a cheater and had no real way of denying that which freaked me out. Always double check your Malifaux deck before playing! The fate deck I got did have a second Red Joker - I found it in the first game when I had both in my hand at once ! I make a point of showing whoever I'm playing that I've put one back in the box now 
Renfield fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Cinnamon Bear posted:There aren't too many of their official Fate Decks that I like, so I use regular playing cards. Well, fancy regular playing cards. Friend, have you heard of the Orbiter card deck display?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
I'm interested in getting into either 40k or AOS with a nurgle army. Which game is better/more accomodating for low point games, like sub 1000pts?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Kill team is fine for 40k, heralds of ruin kill team is better, both are way under 1k. Zone Mortalis and combat patrol are 400-750pts and are good. AoS is like dry shaving your ballsack.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:Friend, have you heard of the Orbiter card deck display? No, but you've got my attention. That's pretty neat!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Injuryprone posted:I'm interested in getting into either 40k or AOS with a nurgle army. Which game is better/more accomodating for low point games, like sub 1000pts? Games Workshop is bad, don't give GW money. If you really want to give GW money (don't do this), go to the 40k/AOS threads and ask, you won't get any constructive advice (other than Don't Give GW Money, which is the best GW related advise) in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Injuryprone posted:I'm interested in getting into either 40k or AOS with a nurgle army. Which game is better/more accomodating for low point games, like sub 1000pts? Congratulations on picking the best Chaos God, by the way. But Geisladisk posted:Games Workshop is bad, don't give GW money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Injuryprone posted:I'm interested in getting into either 40k or AOS with a nurgle army. Which game is better/more accomodating for low point games, like sub 1000pts? 40k because then you can do Kill Team AoS if you want to play a garbage game against people with bad taste
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
I'm interested in getting into either self-flagellation or using a cheese grater to shave my ballsack, can anyone recommend which of these will be more entertaining and less painful than giving GW money?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Flagellation can improve your spiritual discipline
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Injuryprone posted:I'm interested in getting into either 40k or AOS with a nurgle army. Which game is better/more accomodating for low point games, like sub 1000pts? Seconding 40k for Kill Team. The normal version is decent and HoR is better (though more complicated).
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Kill Team is still decades old mechanics as its core right? If you want to play a small scale scifi game, why not wait for Warpath: Firefight to hit retail next year?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:Kill Team is still decades old mechanics as its core right? Or play Kill Team now and use the miniatures in upcoming games.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Play kill team using forge fathers as space marines
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Kill Team it is, thanks all.Atlas Hugged posted:If you want to play a small scale scifi game, why not wait for Warpath: Firefight to hit retail next year? Because Nurgle is cool.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Cinnamon Bear posted:Flagellation can improve your spiritual discipline
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
If you're that religious I'd say it's 50/50 on if you need a ballsack anyway; you're either celibate or having like 17 kids with biblical names.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Cinnamon Bear posted:Its exactly the same as a standard poker deck including jokers, with the suits renamed and largely corresponding to the original 4 factions. Red Joker is the critical success, Black Joker is the critical failure. It can come up a maximum of once per turn, sometimes not at all. If you waste one of your hand slots holding on to it (if you drew it), you can effectively remove that danger from your deck. The interesting thing actually, is that Red and Black Jokers aren't necessarily auto-succeed and fail, respectively. Red is a value 14 and any suit and lock your opponent out of cheating, and Black is a value 0, no suit, you can't cheat, but under certain circumstances you can still win out or fail. Say, for example, both you and your opponent are handless. You flip a Red on a Ml 5 attack for a total of 19, but your opponent flips a 13 on a Df 7 for a total of 20. You still miss. Again, handless, say you flip a Black on a Ml 7 for a total of 7, and your opponent flips a 1 on a Df 6. You still hit. Then you got situations like what I saw last Thursday when my opponent and I both flipped a Red on an opposed duel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:23 |
|
|
Injuryprone posted:Because Nurgle is cool. Nothing stopping you from doing a Nurgle themed Plague force.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 06:43
|
|